Barrirs to Effective HRM

8/2/2019 Barrirs to Effective HRM

1/22

InternationalJournal ofManpower

20,8

494

International Journal of Manpower,

Vol. 20 No. 8, 1999, pp. 494-515.

# MCB University Press, 0143-7720

Barriers to effective HRMBob Kane and John Crawford

University of Technology, Sydney, Australia, andDavid Grant

King's College, University of London, London, UK

Keywords Human resource management, Barriers, Competitive advantage, Australia,New Zealand

Abstract In this study, scales were developed to measure the extent to which organisationsexhibited ``soft'' or ``hard'' approaches to HRM, and the extent to which potential barriers to theeffective operation of HRM were present. The sample comprised 549 employees, managers and

HRM staff across a wide range of types of organisations in Australia, New Zealand, the USA, theUK and Canada. While the results supported the contention that HRM effectiveness can beachieved via both ``soft'' and ``hard'' approaches, several barriers to HRM take-up were identified

and there was little evidence that organisations generally operated HRM policies and practicesthat were seen as effective. Although very few differences between countries were found, theauthors suggest the barriers identified and related ineffectiveness of HRM may be all the moredetrimental to the competitiveness of Australian and New Zealand organisations in light of therecent economic downturn in the Asia-Pacific region.

IntroductionAustralia and New Zealand are unusual in that they are attempting to supportdeveloped economies whilst being island states with limited populations.Although many other industrialised countries with small populations can befound in Europe, these countries have greater opportunities for trade across

common boarders, and many have joined trading blocks such as the EU.In 1995, an Australian government sponsored study reported thatAustralian management had a number of deficiencies in comparison with theircompetitors (Karpin, 1995). It concluded that urgent action was needed forAustralian organisations to become world-class and remain competitive inwhat it referred to as the coming ``Asia-Pacific century''. Later writers haveemphasised the importance of a ` strategic'' approach to human resourcemanagement (HRM) to bring about the changes called for by the Karpin report(Fisher and Dowling, 1999; Edwards et al., 1997). These same writers, however,have noted that progress in terms of actually implementing a strategicapproach to HRM seems to have been slow. Similar calls for change in HRM

have been voiced in New Zealand (Stablein and Geare, 1993), with concern alsobeing expressed about the still slow rate of progress (Haynes and Fryer, 1999).

The recent economic downturn in the Asia-Pacific region has intensified theurgency of change, with organisations within Australia and New Zealandcurrently finding themselves faced with three inter-related challenges. First,their ability to compete with goods and services from overseas competitorsmay have been impaired, where, because of the poor health of many Asia-Pacific economies, overseas competitors are able to provide products andservices at a lower price than can local industry. Second, for many Australian

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emerald-library.com


2/22


3/22


20,8

496

examined in order to identify the extent to which their organisations exhibitedparticular approaches to HRM, and the extent to which potential barriers to theeffective operation of HRM were present. The penultimate section of the paperprovides a discussion of these results. The final section outlines the

implications of the research findings for HRM theory and for Australian andNew Zealand organisations battling to maintain their positions in the context ofthe Asia-Pacific economic downturn.

Human resource management and barriers to its effectivenessAlthough a wide variety of perspectives on HRM have been promulgated inrecent years, much of the writing that goes beyond technical issues can be seenas interpreting HRM as incorporating either a ``soft'', developmental humanistapproach or a ` hard'', situational contingent approach (Boxall, 1996). This``soft''/``hard'' distinction is particularly prevalent in the work of Storey (1992).Legge (1995a, p. 35; 1995b, pp. 66-7) has suggested that in the ``soft'' approach,effective HRM is seen necessarily to involve a focus upon fostering employeemotivation, commitment and development. It is an approach thatacknowledges the importance of HRM to the aims of the business, whilstreflecting attempts by management to create a work environment thatemphasises employee development, through practices such as training,participation and communication, and the importance of having innovative,flexible, committed employees who are valued resources (Beer et al., 1984a;1984b; Boxall, 1996; Guest, 1989; 1991; 1992; Noon, 1992; Walton, 1985).

``Hard'' HRM is, as Legge (1995a, p. 34; 1995b, p. 137) has noted, closelyaligned with what is often termed ``strategic HRM''. In these instances, HRM is

closely linked with business strategy (Beer et al., 1984a; 1984b; Boxall, 1996;Dyer, 1984; Hendry and Pettigrew, 1990; 1992; Kamoche, 1994; Lundy, 1994;Miller, 1989; Purcell, 1995; Schuler, 1992; Tyson, 1995; Whipp, 1992).Accordingly, it views employees as ``a resource to be used dispassionately andin a formally rational manner'' (Storey, 1992, p. 26). As such, HRM effectivenesscan be more contingent upon cost minimisation measures rather than uponsignificant investment in human resources.

Organisations within many countries in the Asia-Pacific region appear tocompete through low prices, using inexpensive labour to carry out relativelyunskilled tasks. A ``hard'', contingency-based approach to HRM is often seen asan essential part of a cost-minimisation strategy. Based on the earlier

discussion, however, Australian and New Zealand organisations are likely toneed the developmental humanist approach to compete effectively in the face ofthe higher labour and infrastructure costs characteristic of their moredeveloped economies.

A number of studies of HRM have found that in spite of the amount oftheoretically and empirically based advice available in the literature, manyorganisations fail to take up what are seen to be effective approaches to HRM.In short, though ``soft'' and ``hard'' views of HRM are embedded in the literatureat the theoretical level, they do not, with the exception of a handful of ``lead'',


4/22

Barriers effective HRM

49

` exemplar'' or ` excellent'' companies, appear to have been translated intopractice (see for example Buller, 1988; Gilbertson and Fogelberg, 1991; Guest,1990, 1992; Jain and Murray, 1984; Kramer, 1992; Legge, 1995a, 1995b; Mooreand Jennings, 1993; Pleval et al., 1994; Storey, 1995). Instead, HRM oftenappears to have been implemented on an ad-hoc, partial or reactive basis. Thus,as Becker and Gerhart (1996, p. 796) have noted: ` At times, there appears to be amajor `disconnect' between what the research literature says that firms shoulddo and what firms actually do''. Evidence of HRM's take-up is also weakenedwhere many studies simply focus on one management practice, often at large,multinational, private sector organisations, implicitly presenting this asindicative of a grand HRM strategy (see for example Buller, 1988; Heyes, 1998;Kane et al., 1994; Midgley, 1990; Plevel et al., 1994; Rosenthal et al., 1998).

We are left then to wonder as to why there is a dearth of evidence pointing tothe widespread adoption of meaningful and effective forms of HRM. The

answer may lie with a number of what are generally post-hoc analyses of HRM.These studies have identified a wide range of factors acting as barriers to itstake-up. Three in particular merit attention. The first concerns the extent towhich top management has a low priority and short-term view of HRM issueswhile being more concerned with issues such as power and control. Thissituation would be exacerbated by HRM's oft-cited low power and status at thesenior executive level (Gennard and Kelly, 1995; Grant and Oswick, 1998; Kane,1996; Torrington, 1989). In short, senior management commitment to HRM iscrucial to its effective operation (Fowler, 1987; Kane, 1996; Purcell, 1994), butoften not as forthcoming as it might be. Indeed, writers such as Dyer andHolder (1988, p. 37), have gone so far as to suggest that top management is

probably the most powerful force that can work against the adoption of HRMinitiatives.

The second barrier to effective HRM relates to the extent to which HRMpractitioners possess the knowledge and skills necessary to implement acredible HRM programme within their organisation. A number ofcommentators have expressed concerns about the ability of some HRM staff toundertake the additional, more proactive roles outlined above (Collins, 1985;Dyer and Holder, 1988; Miller, 1991; Moore and Jennings, 1993; O'Neill, 1985;Schuler, 1990).

The third barrier to effective HRM occurs as a result of the lack of proven

knowledge about, and the few attempts at demonstrating, the long-term impactof HRM programs (Fernie and Metcalf, 1995; Guest and Peccei, 1994; Huselid,1998; Legge, 1995b; Storey, 1995). As a consequence, members of anorganisation may be sceptical of the value of major HRM initiatives. It is ascepticism that may be held by both senior and middle management. They areunable to discern tangible and positive performance outcomes related to HRM,so that their commitment to it wanes or, in some cases, simply fails tomaterialise. Since they are responsible for its actual implementation, their lackof commitment results in ineffective HRM.


5/22


20,8

498

On the basis of the above review of the literature, Blunt's (1990, p. 58)assessment of world-wide trends in HRM remains highly pertinent: ` Thecontinued suggestions made by HRM writers as to what needs to be done toimprove the management of human resources appears to have had a somewhat

moderate and fragmented impact on practice''. However, Blunt's assessmentwas made on the implicit presumption that HR commentators have anobligation to be prescriptive. In taking this position, he ignores a contrastingand less prescriptive view of HRM proposed by Tsui and her colleagues (Tsui,1990; Tsui and Milkovich, 1987). This is the multiple constituency approach.Rather than specifying ideal HRM techniques or strategies, it emphasises thatHRM is subject to a wide range of pressures and expectations from a variety ofinterest groups within the organisation. These expectations may, or may not,be in line with ``hard'' or ``soft'' HRM; the point is that HRM's effectiveness isbased on respondent perceptions of the extent to which it is able to meet theseexpectations. Unlike many studies of HRM which are based on data suppliedsolely by HRM practitioners, studies adopting the multiple constituencyperspective necessarily include assessments of HRM by non-HRM staff(Heneman et al., 1995; Kossek, 1989; Tsui, 1990; Tsui and Milkovich, 1987). Thepresent study adopts the same strategy.

In sum, it would appear that most studies of HRM have investigated arelatively specific area of HRM; rely mainly on information provided by HRMstaff; restrict their sample to moderate or large-size private sectororganisations, usually within a single country; and do not explicitly considerthe problems or barriers that might inhibit HRM effectiveness.

In what follows we seek to address these deficiencies by reporting a study

which:. gathers responses from three major groups of constituents managers,

employees and HRM staff;

. measures respondent perceptions of both ``hard'' and ``soft'' aspects ofHRM effectiveness;

. attempts to assess directly the extent to which the major problems/barriers to HRM exist and are related to HRM effectiveness; and

. compares perceptions across a wide range of types and sizes oforganisations within Australia and New Zealand and three comparableoverseas countries (i.e. nations with similarly developed economies).

MethodMeasuresOur study utilised a questionnaire that targeted managers and employees aswell as HRM staff. It was therefore necessary to avoid questions abouttechnical details that could be answered only by HRM staff. Also, since thequestionnaire was to be completed in a number of countries by respondentsfrom organisations in many industries across the private sector, government


6/22


49

and non-profit sectors, it would not have been appropriate to include questionswhich pertained to factors relevant to only one country, industry or sector. Thefinal questionnaire consisted of 42 questions.

The first page included instructions and some background questions. As a

part of the instructions, the following definition was provided: ` In thisquestionnaire, the term `HRM' is used to cover all of the usual PersonnelManagement or Human Resource Management policies and practices, such asselection, promotion and termination of staff, performance appraisal, equalopportunity, pay and benefits, training and career development, humanresource planning, etc''. For all items except those assessing backgroundcharacteristics, a seven-point Likert-style scale was used, anchored at 1 = verytrue in my organisation, to a very great extent, etc., and at 7 = not true at all,not at all, etc. The major portion of the questionnaire consisted of questionsthat asked respondents to indicate the extent to which a series of potentialproblems or barriers to HRM were present in their organisation. Threeadditional questions were concerned with possible problems with the field ofHRM, such as its long-term impacts being difficult to quantify.

For those organisations which had one or more HRM staff, two questionsasked for assessment of the extent to which they were helpful to managers andemployees, whilst three attempted to assess HRM staff knowledge and skills,credibility with top management and view of their role. Seven questions wereconcerned with evaluation of the effectiveness of HRM in their organisation.Three of these were written from a situational contingency or ` hard''perspective, whilst three more were concerned with the developmentalhumanist, or ``soft'', perspective. An additional question asked respondents to

assess the overall effectiveness of HRM in their organisation. The exactquestions used are detailed in Table I.

Sampling techniqueA sample consisting of HRM staff, managers and employees across a widerange of sectors and in several different countries was needed. It was decidedthat an efficient way to gather such a sample was to target students in MBA-type courses who were employed full-time whilst studying part-time.Therefore, questionnaires were distributed and collected from this type ofstudent in MBA classes at two universities in Sydney, Australia; one inWellington, New Zealand; two in South-eastern USA; one in London, UK; and

one in Montreal, Canada.

SubjectsA total of 702 respondents from these five different countries completed thequestionnaire. The current study focused only on those 549 respondents whoindicated that their organisation had one or more staff specifically designatedas personnel or HRM managers. Of these respondents, 310 (56 per cent) wereAustralian, 91 (17 per cent) were British, 75 (14 per cent) were American, 33 (6per cent) were Canadian, and 37 (7 per cent) were New Zealanders. (Note:


7/22


20,8

500

Table I.Questionnaire itemsand factor-based scales

M SD

Scale 1: Effectiveness (a = 0.91) 4.26 1.26

How effective overall do your organisation's HRM policies and practices seem to be? 4.31 1.46

How effective are your organisation's HRM policies and practices in terms of increasing employeemotivation, satisfaction and commitment to the organisation?

4.81 1.65

To what extent do your organisation's HRM policies and practices help all employees to develop to their

maximum potential?

4.60 1.57

To what extent do your organisation's HRM policies and practices appear to treat all employees fairly? 3.73 1.65

To what extent do your organisation's HRM policies and practices appear to adopt a long-term

perspective?

4.32 1.53

To what extent do your organisation's HRM policies and practices in the various HRM areas appear to

be closely integrated with each other?

4.10 1.50

To what extent do your organisation's HRM policies and practices seem designed in line with the

organisation's strategy and objectives?

3.93 1.61

Scale 2: Helpfulness (a = 0.76) 3.73 1.60

My orga nisatio n's HRM staff are a help to mana gers in dea ling with HR matte rs 3 .74 1.7 4

My organisation's HRM staff are a help to employees in regard to their rights, entitlements and needs 3.72 1.81

Scale 3: Management attitudes (a = 0.87) 3.92 1.28

Our top managers take a short-term perspective. 3.97 1.77

There is little rational logic behind what happens in our organisation 4.50 1.71

Our top managers give low priority to human resources issues 4.08 1.71

Our top managers are more concerned about their own power and about maintaining control than about

the real needs of the organisation

3.37 1.76

Our top mana gem ent is no t sophistica ted in terms of its understanding of HRM 3.87 1 .78

There is a general lack of trust, support and fairness in my organisation 4.00 1.76

Financial problems have led our top management to be more concerned about the organisation's short-

term survival than long-term benefits

3.79 2.02

Groups beyond our top management (such as shareholders, boards, corporate headquarters, central

agencies, politicians, etc.) take a short-term view of HRM

3.73 1.68

Scale 4: HR staff (a = 0.85) 3.83 1.66Our HR staff probably lack the knowledge and skills to develop and carry out a long-range integrated

HRM program

3.96 1.93

My organisation's HRM staff seem to see their job as routine administration instead of attempting to

maximise the long-term benefits for the organisation and its employees

3.76 1.93

Our HRM staff seem to lack the influence and credibility to gain the resources and management

commitment to implement effective new policies and practices

3.78 1.81

Scale 5: HRM nature (a = 0.62) 3.96 1.24

There is a lack of proven knowledge in the field of HRM about which HRM policies and practices are

actually the best

3.61 1.51

The real long-term impact of HRM programs is difficult to quantify 3.55 1.65

Since people are complex, subjective and political, ``human resources'' cannot be ``managed'' in a rational

and logical way

4.64 1.72

Other items in the questionnaire

There is a general resistance to change in my organisation 3.60 1.60

There is resistance to centralised control, policies, etc. in my organisation, with most areas just wanting

to do their own thing in their own way

3.76 1.75

Because of rapid changes in my organisation's external environment, its future needs are hard to predict 3.69 1.81

Our line managers lack the skills to implement effective HRM programs 3.48 1.66

My organisation is informally divided along ethnic, racial, religious, gender or status lines, which

inhibits the development of fair and effective HRM policies

5.15 1.79

Union actions and attitudes make it difficult to implement effective HRM programs in my organisation 5.19 1.78

Our line ma nage rs a re too o verburdened with other work to attend to HRM is sue s 3.72 1 .64


8/22


50

percentages given throughout are rounded to the nearest whole percent and donot include any missing responses.) The majority (76 per cent) had been withtheir organisation for more than two years; about half (51 per cent) were aged25 to 34 years, with a further 33 per cent aged between 35 and 44 years. Thirty-

eight per cent were female, whilst 58 per cent were male. Most had gained theirfamiliarity with HRM in their organisation through their roles as managers/supervisors (44 per cent) or employees (42 per cent), although 12 per cent hadgained this familiarity through their roles as HRM staff. The sample generallyrepresented mid-level (63 per cent) and senior-level staff (20 per cent), with only16 per cent identifying themselves as at a relatively junior level. This wouldimply that even those who were familiar with their organisation's HRMthrough an employee role were likely to be professional staff, rather thanunskilled or semi-skilled employees. Although this is not surprising in light ofthe sampling technique, it should be borne in mind when interpreting theresults.

In terms of the respondents' organisations, the sample was relatively evenlydivided between the private, for-profit sector (45 per cent) and the public orgovernment sector (42 per cent), with only 9 per cent identifying theirorganisation as other than the above. Respondents were offered the choice of 11different industry categories as well as ``other'', and responses spread across allof these. The largest percentages were in the financial/business services area(20 per cent), manufacturing (16 per cent), community service (13 per cent) andpublic administration (11 per cent). Organisation size, in terms of number ofemployees, also varied considerably, with the largest percentages in the 1,000-9,999 employees category (31 per cent) as well as the 200-999 employees

category (27 per cent).Overall, the sampling technique appeared successful in capturing a verybroad range of respondents in terms of country, level and type of position andtype and size of organisation.

ResultsIn this section, mean scores for all of the seven-point items relating to barriersand HRM effectiveness are first reported. These items were then factoranalysed, resulting in the presentation and discussion of five factor-basedscales. The final part of the section reports on the use of these scales to makecomparisons within the sample.

Barriers and effectiveness item scoresTable I lists mean scores and standard deviations for all of the items other thanthose concerned with respondent or organisational background. All items usedseven-point response formats and they are grouped in terms of scales describedlater. For items listed in Scale 1, a response of ``1'' indicated ``very effective'' or``to a very great extent'', whilst a response of ``7'' indicated ``not at all''. For all ofthe remaining items, a response of ``1'' indicated ``very true'', whilst a responseof ``7'' indicated ``not at all''. With the seven-point scales used, a mean rating of 4


9/22


20,8

502

represents the scale mid-point. Using this as a reference point, it can be seenthat HRM is not generally seen as very effective, with most of the mean scoresabove 4.00 (Scale 1). HRM staff are generally seen as at least moderately helpfulto both managers and employees (Scale 2), although there is general agreementthat they lack the knowledge, skills, influence, credibility and perspective ontheir roles to implement a strategic approach to HRM (Scale 4). There was alsogeneral agreement that HRM as a field lacks enough proven knowledge andthat its long-term impact is difficult to quantify, although it was believed thatpeople can be managed in a rational, logical way (Scale 5). Mean ratings inregard to management-related attitudes (Scale 3) generally clustered around thescale mid-point. One exception was that there appeared to be generalagreement that top managers are more concerned about their own power andabout maintaining control than about the real needs of the organisation; thisitem obtained the greatest level of agreement of all of the items.

Also shown at the bottom of Table I are a number of items not included inthe above scales. These show that there is general agreement about thepresence of resistance to change and to centralised control, that a rapidlychanging environment makes future needs hard to predict, and that linemanagers lack the skills and are too overworked to implement HRM programseffectively. The two items that attracted the lowest mean levels of agreementwere that informal divisions within their organisation and that union actionsinhibit the development/implementation of effective HRM programs.

Based on these mean scores, the overall picture is, at best, of moderatelyeffective HRM. Contributing factors seem to be management attitudes andpriorities, HRM staff themselves, and the state of HRM as a ``science''. Whilst

HRM staff are generally seen as helpful to managers and employees in routinematters, they are not seen as possessing the knowledge, skills, influence andcredibility to develop and implement more effective HRM policies.

Factor analysis and descriptive statistics for factor-based scalesIn order to search for underlying dimensions and to reduce the data to a morereliable set of scales, factor analysis was performed on items relating to thebarriers to HRM effectiveness and the evaluation of HRM policies andpractices. The SPSS for Windows Version 6.13 statistical package was used forthis purpose. Factors were extracted using principal axis factoring and the

factors were rotated to simple structure using the Oblimin procedure. Root-onecriterion suggested that seven factors could be extracted, while an examinationof the plot of factor eigenvalues, and using the scree criterion, suggested theextraction of only three factors. The five-factor solution was adopted as thisgave rise to well defined and readily interpretable factors.

Based on this factor solution, five scales were constructed by averaging theitems that defined each of the factors. Items were chosen on the basis that theyloaded relatively strongly on the related factor (in almost all instances above0.5), and did not have significant loadings on any of the other factors. Table I


10/22


50

lists the questionnaire items comprising each of the five scales. The namesgiven to each of the scales is shown as well as the scale means, standarddeviations and Cronbach alpha reliability estimates.

The first factor contained items related to the effectiveness of HRM policies

and practices, both with respect to increasing employees' motivation,satisfaction and commitment (``soft'' aspects of HRM), and to being supportiveof the organisational strategy and objectives (``hard'' aspects of HRM). It alsocontained a single item which gave an overall rating of the effectiveness of theorganisation's HRM policies and practices. The second factor contained itemsevaluating how helpful HRM staff were to both managers and employees.Whilst the Cronbach alpha for the first scale is high (0.91), the alpha for thesecond scale is considerably lower (0.76), suggesting that the extent to whichHRM staff are seen as helpful to managers is somewhat independent of howhelpful they are seen to be to employees.

The remaining three factors contained items relating to the various potentialbarriers to effective HRM in the organisation. The third factor (scale alpha =0.87) represents subjects' views on the extent to which top management givelow priority to HR issues and take a short-term view of HRM issues whilstbeing more concerned with issues such as power and control. The fourth factor(scale alpha = 0.85) assessed whether the organisation's HRM staff lack theknowledge, skills and credibility to implement a strategic approach to HRM.The fifth factor (scale alpha = 0.62) assessed the extent to which therespondents thought that there is a lack of proven knowledge about the bestHRM policies, and difficulty in demonstrating the long-term impact of HRMprograms. It can be seen that the Cronbach alpha for the fifth scale is relatively

low, indicating a lower internal consistency amongst respondents' views as todifficulties facing HRM as a field.In addition to the five factor-based scales described above, two further scales

were formed from items contained in the effectiveness scale. The first, whichwe have labelled ``HRM soft'' comprises the three items which reflect the ``soft''aspects of HRM (alpha = 0.81). The second comprises the three items whichrelate to the ` hard'' aspects of HRM, and has been labelled ` HRM hard'' (alpha =0.83).

Correlations amongst scalesTable II shows correlations between effectiveness and the other scales

described above. For ease of interpretation, in this and all subsequent tables,items have been recoded where necessary so that a higher score reflects agreater extent or quantity of the construct being measured. Thus, the negativecorrelations between three barriers scales and the effectiveness measuresindicates a tendency for a greater presence of these barriers to be associatedwith lower effectiveness ratings. It can be seen that the scale most strongly, andnegatively, related to the effectiveness measures was the one (managementattitudes) in which the majority of items reflected a variety of negative topmanagement attitudes (with r's ranging from 0.54 to 0.60). Comparable


11/22


20,8

504

negative correlations with the effectiveness measures occurred with the HRSTAFF scale, which measured the extent to which HR staff lack the requiredskills, attitudes and credibility to manage a long-term integrated HR program.The scale indicating the extent to which HR staff are helpful to both employeesand management had noticeably lower correlations with the effectivenessmeasures (r's from 0.33 to 0.37). This clearly suggests that respondents hadexpectations of HR staff that extended further than simply being helpfulpeople. The scale reflecting intrinsic difficulties of the HRM area (HRM nature)was shown to be essentially unrelated to the effectiveness measures.

It can be noted that a correlation ofr= 0.72 between the two scales reflectingthe ``soft'' and ``hard'' aspects of HRM (HRM soft and HRM hard), is slightlylower than the Cronbach alpha reliability estimates of these two scales (apha'sof 0.81 and 0.83, respectively). Although factor analysis resulted in the itemscomprising these two scales forming a single factor, this finding does give

some indication that they could represent two strongly related but distinctconstructs. It should be noted that both of these scales are highly andapproximately equally correlated with the overall HRM effectiveness scale(effectiveness), suggesting that attention to both organisational and individualneeds is necessary for HRM to be seen as effective. The correlations of bothhard and soft HRM scales with the various barriers scales are generallyparallel, although HRM hard is somewhat more highly correlated with the scaleassessing the strategic potential of HRM staff (HR staff) than is HRM soft. Thismight suggest that a developmental approach to employees is not as reliantupon capable HRM staff as is a more purely strategic HRM approach.

Relationships between scales and respondent and organisational characteristicsA number of differences amongst respondents and their organisations were ofinterest in this study. Several became apparent on the basis of the respondenttype and level of position. Table III shows that, for all measures except themanagement attitudes scale, there was a statistically significant associationbetween scale scores and whether respondents' familiarity with theorganisation's HRM policies and practices was gained as a manager, employeeor HRM staff member. Examination of the group means and post-hoc paired

Table II.Correlations of scalescores

Effectiveness HRM soft HRM hard

Helpfulness 0.37* 0.33* 0.35*

Management attitudes 0.60* 0.54* 0.56*

HR staff 0.57* 0.48* 0.56*

HRM nature 0.08 0.07 0.07

Effectiveness 1.00 0.93* 0.91*

HRM soft 1.00 0.72*

HRM hard 1.00

Note: *p


12/22


50

comparisons showed that this was due to the consistently more positiveevaluations by those who had gained familiarity with their organisations' HRMpolicies and practices through their work as members of the HRM staff.

This result could be explained in a number of ways, including the possibilitythat HRM staff knew more about their organisations' HRM policies andpractices, so that their ratings were more accurate. It was found that the level ofself-rated familiarity with an organisation's HRM policies and practices wasrelated to more positive evaluations of all of the scales discussed above (p

Barrirs to Effective HRM

Documents

Transcript of Barrirs to Effective HRM